Of that 33% is the most restrictive single house ("The Single House zone currently covers around a third of residential Auckland and is very restrictive, allowing for only one dwelling on sections smaller than 600 square metres." according to http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/75219048/Aucklands-controver...).
5% is zoned for apartment buildings.
Here's 97% of your house pricing problem. Not foreigners, not low interest rates, not land taxing policies.
New Zealand has total population of ~2x Paris and land 1000x of Paris.
This is Venezuela style of fixing problems: instead of addressing underlying economics (limited supply meeting increasing demand causing raising prices) by increasing supply, find a political scapegoat (all nations are xenophobic so outsiders are always a good target) to get people to vote for you and create ineffective rules.
The real fix is politically unpopular. Unsurprisingly, Aucklanders are NIMBY with the best of them. The plan to upzone is "controversial" and anti-upzoning arguments are the same you see in SF and everywhere else where that comes up.
Speaking as an Australian, , where we already have nominally similar policies, and keeping in mind the metro house price phenomenon is repeating in several places in the world in a similar fashion, there's just one small problem with these policies:
There's limited evidence available that it's foreign buyers primarily responsible for our high house prices :/
The primary cause has always been local steady employment, low interest rates combined with liberal access to debt with households culturally disposed to pumping that into housing.
It's very easy to blame this on Chinese money (which I'm sure is a common story in many parts of the world where house prices are taking off), but the far bigger cause had always been leveraging afforded by local households combined with a low interest rate environment.
Just replying to myself now to add: the solution to high house prices is, like much transport policy, boring and well known but not implemented for political reasons. On the housing front: tax capital gains, limit leveraging ability, implement a land based tax and zone/invest appropriately to encourage new supply. This will bring housing far more in line with what people expect.
This brings us to the other awkward point though: truthfully, I'm sure many New Zealanders, just like many Australians, neither want their housing prices/investments to drop in relative price or to return to closer relationships with local use.
Which leads us to the policy/political pantomime game so often involved in these areas where people want to have their cake and eat it too: "I want afforable housing for my children that doesn't make my property prices drop!"
As another Australian, our housing prices is broken for multiple reasons but foreign investment is a _major_ contributor.
Credit Suisse research indicates that "foreigners are acquiring 25 per cent of newly completed supply in NSW and 16 per cent in Melbourne, or 21 per cent if we combine the two states". The total value of new houses in both states was $39 billion over the relevant 12 months.
After the Chinese government cracked down on monetary restrictions (i.e. Citizens of China can normally only convert US$50,000 a year in foreign currency and have long been barred from buying property overseas), Lend Lease reported 30 to 40% of foreign purchases now being cash settled.
Transparency International consider Australia the worst money laundering property market in the world.
Foreign investment, especially for countries which avoided the 2007 housing bubble such as Australia, is a major issue.
A friend will be posting an article on the multiple bubbles he sees in the Australian economy, and property is potentially the most concerning of all given how exposed our banks are to housing loans.
We may find Australia finally seeing their house bubble pop like the US in 2007.
I think you're correct on the large scale but anecdotally, the first 3 houses I put an offer on were purchased by the same Chinese couple at a price much higher than I'd have expected. I stopped putting offers on house when I saw them at the open homes. I have nothing against them they are acting in their own interests and good on them for having the money to buy property. I just can't compete with them and am glad that our government will manipulate the market in favour of people living in the country. I suspect that foreign ownership of land could have a negative impact on our economy as it only extracts money from our economy.
>"There's limited evidence available that it's foreign buyers primarily responsible for our high house prices"
There's actually lots of evidence that hot foreign money is driving the prices up. There's also been a trend by developers to develop properties to attract this type of buyer.
There is lots of anecdata that Chinese real estate speculation that is obviously rampant in china is spilling out into international markets, like it did with Japan 30 years ago. When I was living in china, I knew people who were looking abroad for real estate investments. But anyways, vested interests in those target markets don't want it to go beyond anecdata, so they operate under a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
New Zealand is a classic case where housing prices have far exceeded normal incomes. When asked to consider NZ for a job, I ask is the pay better (no); is the cost of living cheaper (also no....). It definitely isn't tech salaries driving the housing bubble there!
The issue is it's extremely easy to hide foreign ownership through trusts, companies and relatives who are Australian residents. Anyone with a the means to pay top dollar for an investment property can easily afford hiring the right people to get around this restriction. Which makes it even more shocking when you see statistics like 21% of supply is purchased by foreigners.
Same thing in London. Foreign buyers is the big bogeyman, but the reality is that prices are sky high even in areas where foreign buyers are not the slightest bit interested in putting their money.
The reality is that most foreign buyers here rent out their properties - it's an investment after all - and it's only on the very, very high end of the market that people leave their properties empty for any amount of time, and that's a very tiny proportion of the total market.
But it is convenient to be able to blame someone else and avoid making the hard policy decisions requires to boost construction.
(while I agree leveraging makes it worse, though, the underlying problem is still competition for a too constrained supply of housing - I don't know about Australia, but in the UK house-building has trailed demand for decades at this point; to a large extent because of short-sighted policies which focuses infrastructure investments in already overheated areas and makes it even more attractive to move there, coupled with lack of willingness to open new areas for construction or relaxing restrictions on new developments in terms of height etc. outside of very small areas)
It's the same in Canada. Everyone blamed the Chinese for the increase in housing prices. When they actually got the data, non-resident purchases of residential real estate in metro Vancouver barely broke 10%. It's much lower than that in the suburbs of Vancouver and Toronto.
It's the 90% of Canadians with access to cheap debt and fueled by "real estate never goes down! It's now or never" that pushed prices so high.
Australia's policy is weak with regards to enforcement and penalties; NZ's may or may not end up being more effective.
Agreed that foreign speculation is at most only part of the problem and that the drivers you mention are a large part of it, but you missed out the other significant factor in the "cultural" inclination to invest in property, which is that the favourable taxation policies (CGT discount, negative gearing, family home CGT exemption) and benefit policies (family home exemption from pension means tests) drive money into property.
In NZ's case it's even worse as there's close to no capital gains tax on any property speculation (no requirement to actually live in a property to claim it as an owner/occupier style non-investment property).
Speaking as an Australian as well. I'd say 1 house per person and no negative gearing in addition to stopping overseas investment in residential property would be a better policy.
I lament that lack of business in Australia because everyone is fighting over the scraps of our property market.
Acow_Adonis, I think you've failed to consider a few factors.
A quarter of new NSW properties were sold to foreigners the past year and 89% of those foreigners are Chinese [1]
70% of Chinese are buying property with 100% cash [2]
$3.8 TRILLION USD of "capital flight" escaped from China in the past decade
[3]
Australia's property prices doubled this past decade, from an already high base [4]
Australia has no Anti Money Laundering laws for Realestate Agents, Lawyers and Accountants, despite a committee "considering" implementation every two years for over a decade. Transparency International ranks Australia as having the weakest anti-money laundering (AML) laws in the Anglosphere, failing all 10 priority areas
[5]
Prices for property are set at the margins (recent sales are used for valuation of upcoming sales)
[6]
> There's limited evidence available that it's foreign buyers primarily responsible for our high house prices :/
It doesn't matter if it is the primary cause, it is one of the causes. And it is the one to change that causes the least problems to the people of the country you represent.
In Australia, things are compounded by the incredibly greedy negative gearing rule, which also needs to be banned.
That’s really not the case. The issue, however, is broader - there are so many people speculating on property in Any Arrakis we are heading for an absolutely enormous crash. Chinese investors are getting targeted because there have been quite a few of them in an already incredibly overheated market.
That doesn’t mean that overseas speculators aren’t part of the cause this problem.
A house with an absent owner overseas is usually still occupied by somebody, so still contributes to housing supply. I don't really think the measure will have much if any affect.
There may be some houses that are left vacant, the owner could be in NZ or somewhere else. Perhaps it would have been more useful to take measures against that instead.
There's limited evidence available that it's foreign buyers primarily responsible for our high house prices :/
Correct.
The primary cause has always been local steady employment, low interest rates combined with liberal access to debt with households culturally disposed to pumping that into housing.
Vancouver would like a word with you. Foreigners were buying homes sight unseen to park cash. Vancouver passed a foreign buyer luxury tax for those who arent living in their homes full time... and Lo and Behold! Sales decreased a ton and things have been cooling down.
The real reason this is happening is in fact much simpler than outlined in the comments: Kiwis quite simply don't have an asset class in which to invest sensibly that isn't property [1]. In America, I'd cheerfully put the majority of my income into an index fund tracking things like the S&P 500 but New Zealand tax laws heavily penalise this and incentivise property ownership by giving a pass on capital gain tax. The result? House prices are driven up artificially; a problem adroitly obscured by not appearing on an RPI index.
The current political developments present an interesting situation; a Labour campaign pledge was to impose capital gain tax on personal property investment (already sanely capped for anyone considered a property developer). I don't see other asset classes being taxed differently to compensate, thus exacerbating the already dire talent drain the country is experiencing. Ironic, given the endemic NZ aspiration to 'get ahead'. It's certainly an interesting time to live here, but I'd prefer bubbles to confine themselves to the Bay Area!
"We have agreed on banning the purchase of existing homes by foreign buyers," said Ms Ardern
My point is that non-residents will still be able to build new houses. This policy brings New Zealand in line with Australia which already has a similar policy.
Australia's is toothless though, in that enforcement is minimal and so are the penalties. NZ's may be equally crap or it may be quite effective, but I haven't seen details on the above and so it's hard to compare the policies at this point. A policy like Thailand's, where those found to be buying against the rules have their property taken off them without compensation, would be ideal.
The next step would be to require that those that do not meet the rules sell up, which should put a bit of supply into the market and achieve some meaningful price movement.
Another good step would be to finally bring in a decent capital gains tax, ideally charged annually on paper profits at whatever your marginal tax rate is, and with no family home exemptions. Ironically taxing the family home would, in this case, actually make them more affordable by exerting further pressure to move speculators out of the market.
Also, it appears that residents of New Zealand (who may be foreigners) can buy existing homes [1]. So apparently it would still work if you can move there and establish residency, but not for buying a second home while living elsewhere.
Agreed. Funny that everyone is focusing on that point, which probably won't have much affect. I expect other policies such as below, will likely have more affect. Encouraging more housing at the lower end of the market seems like a good idea. Rather than pushing low income earners into the exurbs.
"LABOUR WILL PARTNER WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO BUILD 100,000 AFFORDABLE HOMES
KiwiBuild will deliver 100,000 affordable houses over ten years for first home buyers. Half of these will be built in Auckland. That is a ten-fold increase in the number of affordable houses being built in Auckland each year, from 500 to 5,000."
As an immigrant New Yorker, I welcome this step and kudos to the local government of NZ for taking such initiative. For example on NYC foreign investors have ruined the prospect for an average hard working New Yorker couple to purchase a property at a reasonable price. Foreign investors (Chinese, Russians and Middle Easterns, nothing personally against all of these demographics) have been pouring in capital via greedy American established real estate management agencies. Often owners do not want to deal with the hassle of loan approval, waiting times etc and they mostly take the offer whoever pays the quickest cash. Same thing is happening in Vancouver and other major metropolitan cities across the nation and the world.
Oh bullshit. New York City is the poster-child of bad housing policy. It's amazing Tokyo can fit 38 million people into its city but New York City can't find room for 1/5 of that.
You look at any major city and you'll see rent control and stabilization, restrictions on building and eviction, and a thousand other well intentioned policies that "help" the poor or "save" our "historic" neighborhoods. What a great job its doing...
I'm just wondering: Can't foreign money create a company in New Zealand, buy real estate with that company and then rent it out or just let it stay there.
It says it is banning non-residents. But a New Zealand company owned by a foreigner is considered a resident entity, right?
Why not just allow more or denser housing to be built? You could take all that foreign cash and turn it into high paying jobs! I mean sure construction jobs aren't high paying, but with enough automation, those jobs could turn into high paying software jobs. Just get rid of all the building and zoning laws and allow companies to innovate as much as they want.
Optionally, you could still ban foreigners from buying in places where things are already built out.
It just seems such a shame, to see so much economic loss on both sides (both for purchasers and those who'd have benefited from more jobs or higher paying jobs).
This is a disturbing pattern I've been seeing playing out in many countries: politicians and the sometimes the voters that elected them have insufficient economic education to make optimal decisions, leading to economic losses - the prime example being what happened in Venezuela.
Every single article about housing affordability on HN has the same comments. I don't know who actually writes these comments, but their solution is to just reduce the quality of life of people by increasing housing density. They think that somehow this idea has escaped everybody and they are geniuses for thinking of it. Everybody who doesn't want to smell other people's shit is called a "nimby", and infinite population growth is supposedly the only rational path forward.
Are the people making these comments the same people that will happily live in this situation? Are they rich people that will never live in this environment, or are they young progressives who think they want to live in a high-rise and have sex with robots or whatever despite being 20 and not knowing anything? Or are they immigrants trying to get into a country?
This debate is simply that of liberalizing or controlling a nation's capital account. There are benefits to both.
The benefit of liberalization (i.e. no limits on foreign investment) is that it can provide "a higher rate of return on people’s savings in industrial countries by increasing growth, employment opportunities, and living standards in developing countries." [1]
The benefit of controlling (i.e. limit foreign investment) is that it can reduce market volatility and risk. "International investors are willing to lend to them in good times but tend to pull back in bad times, thereby amplifying swings in the domestic macroeconomy." [1]
I don't understand the concern with foreigners wanting to buy real estate. If a bunch of people want to import money from another jurisdiction and use it to buy something that is literally impossible for them to repatriate, more fool them! Let's take as much of their money as they'll offer.
Why not simply introduce foreign ownership surtaxes instead of this ham-handed (and loopholed) approach? Wouldn't that be a win-win? Either you have more tax income, inflating housing prices cool off, and/or more vacancies for citizens. What's not to love?
It's not really loopholed; those that actually live in NZ _should_ be able to buy property there (our voting laws are similar, those with permanent residency are also entitled to vote).
Try the obvious and simple approach first. If not working, revise.
Instead of trying to balance between too many factors, slumping in decision making and consensus gathering, and in the process, all the smart people already exploited or even corrupted the system.
Actually this hasn't been the first approach, there's been a gradual tightening of access to mortgages via what's called the LVR, by upping the deposit amount required for mortgages to buy a house and differentiating between the family home and investment properties. Arguably this has slowed down the rampant price rises in the past 6-12 months without crashing the market. Currently LVR rates are 20% owner occupied and 40% for investment properties (ie rentals). There's some exemptions and some other tax rules that have been put in place also. Anecdotally we're not seeing the craziness of 24mths ago. Auction pass rates have increased and the number of for sale signs have dropped dramatically. This new policy is probably more politically motivated than will actually have an effect.
The main obvious thing is to make property speculation neutral with regards to tax, rather than the tax avoidance hole that it currently is. Hopefully they'll address that too, but given that Adern has been quoted as saying they're not looking to push down prices in AUckland I'm not all that hopeful that they'll actually take the steps that need to be done.
My guess is something sensible like this would have zero chance of happening in the USA. It would be killed by the Real Estate lobby before a single pen hit paper.
I don’t live in New Zealand, but I assume this is good for locals. Would love to hear your thoughts if you live there!
I live in LA and I’d welcome it here - not for all “foreigners” but at least to block foreign investors in residential homes and condos (not the actual buildings but the units). I bought a home last year and I put in 36 offers all 5-15% above asking and was outbid by investors on all but one that I ass-backwarded into.
I feel like this is something that would also be welcome in Barcelona with the issues they are having with investors buying up all the housing and renting it on AirBNB.
Price of real estate is insane everywhere. Here in Brazil there are not many foreigners buying houses but prices are completely unrelated to income since 2010. It has more to do with cheap money, lack of other investment opportunities (at least the perceived lack of) and the good old Ponzi scheme ("la vivienda nunca baja"). Government loves that because it is an easy way to swell up the economy (now we are paying the price for this kind of disingenuous measure) and also the payment of certain taxes like property and real estate transfer.
[+] [-] kjksf|8 years ago|reply
75% of Auckland is zoned for 1 or 2 story buildings (according to http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&o...).
Of that 33% is the most restrictive single house ("The Single House zone currently covers around a third of residential Auckland and is very restrictive, allowing for only one dwelling on sections smaller than 600 square metres." according to http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/75219048/Aucklands-controver...).
5% is zoned for apartment buildings.
Here's 97% of your house pricing problem. Not foreigners, not low interest rates, not land taxing policies.
New Zealand has total population of ~2x Paris and land 1000x of Paris.
This is Venezuela style of fixing problems: instead of addressing underlying economics (limited supply meeting increasing demand causing raising prices) by increasing supply, find a political scapegoat (all nations are xenophobic so outsiders are always a good target) to get people to vote for you and create ineffective rules.
The real fix is politically unpopular. Unsurprisingly, Aucklanders are NIMBY with the best of them. The plan to upzone is "controversial" and anti-upzoning arguments are the same you see in SF and everywhere else where that comes up.
[+] [-] ACow_Adonis|8 years ago|reply
There's limited evidence available that it's foreign buyers primarily responsible for our high house prices :/
The primary cause has always been local steady employment, low interest rates combined with liberal access to debt with households culturally disposed to pumping that into housing.
It's very easy to blame this on Chinese money (which I'm sure is a common story in many parts of the world where house prices are taking off), but the far bigger cause had always been leveraging afforded by local households combined with a low interest rate environment.
[+] [-] ACow_Adonis|8 years ago|reply
This brings us to the other awkward point though: truthfully, I'm sure many New Zealanders, just like many Australians, neither want their housing prices/investments to drop in relative price or to return to closer relationships with local use.
Which leads us to the policy/political pantomime game so often involved in these areas where people want to have their cake and eat it too: "I want afforable housing for my children that doesn't make my property prices drop!"
[+] [-] Smerity|8 years ago|reply
Credit Suisse research indicates that "foreigners are acquiring 25 per cent of newly completed supply in NSW and 16 per cent in Melbourne, or 21 per cent if we combine the two states". The total value of new houses in both states was $39 billion over the relevant 12 months.
After the Chinese government cracked down on monetary restrictions (i.e. Citizens of China can normally only convert US$50,000 a year in foreign currency and have long been barred from buying property overseas), Lend Lease reported 30 to 40% of foreign purchases now being cash settled.
Transparency International consider Australia the worst money laundering property market in the world.
Foreign investment, especially for countries which avoided the 2007 housing bubble such as Australia, is a major issue.
A friend will be posting an article on the multiple bubbles he sees in the Australian economy, and property is potentially the most concerning of all given how exposed our banks are to housing loans. We may find Australia finally seeing their house bubble pop like the US in 2007.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/property/australian-property-...
https://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/publication/doors_wide...
Updated to include direct link to Credit Suisse: https://research-doc.credit-suisse.com/docView?language=ENG&...
[+] [-] xupybd|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bogomipz|8 years ago|reply
There's actually lots of evidence that hot foreign money is driving the prices up. There's also been a trend by developers to develop properties to attract this type of buyer.
See:
https://www.nytimes.com/news-event/shell-company-towers-of-s...
and
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/25/planne...
and
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/real-estate-news/ar...
[+] [-] seanmcdirmid|8 years ago|reply
New Zealand is a classic case where housing prices have far exceeded normal incomes. When asked to consider NZ for a job, I ask is the pay better (no); is the cost of living cheaper (also no....). It definitely isn't tech salaries driving the housing bubble there!
[+] [-] stirlo|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vidarh|8 years ago|reply
The reality is that most foreign buyers here rent out their properties - it's an investment after all - and it's only on the very, very high end of the market that people leave their properties empty for any amount of time, and that's a very tiny proportion of the total market.
But it is convenient to be able to blame someone else and avoid making the hard policy decisions requires to boost construction.
(while I agree leveraging makes it worse, though, the underlying problem is still competition for a too constrained supply of housing - I don't know about Australia, but in the UK house-building has trailed demand for decades at this point; to a large extent because of short-sighted policies which focuses infrastructure investments in already overheated areas and makes it even more attractive to move there, coupled with lack of willingness to open new areas for construction or relaxing restrictions on new developments in terms of height etc. outside of very small areas)
[+] [-] refurb|8 years ago|reply
It's the 90% of Canadians with access to cheap debt and fueled by "real estate never goes down! It's now or never" that pushed prices so high.
[+] [-] elyobo|8 years ago|reply
Agreed that foreign speculation is at most only part of the problem and that the drivers you mention are a large part of it, but you missed out the other significant factor in the "cultural" inclination to invest in property, which is that the favourable taxation policies (CGT discount, negative gearing, family home CGT exemption) and benefit policies (family home exemption from pension means tests) drive money into property.
In NZ's case it's even worse as there's close to no capital gains tax on any property speculation (no requirement to actually live in a property to claim it as an owner/occupier style non-investment property).
[+] [-] gonzo41|8 years ago|reply
I lament that lack of business in Australia because everyone is fighting over the scraps of our property market.
[+] [-] mmerlin|8 years ago|reply
A quarter of new NSW properties were sold to foreigners the past year and 89% of those foreigners are Chinese [1]
70% of Chinese are buying property with 100% cash [2]
$3.8 TRILLION USD of "capital flight" escaped from China in the past decade [3]
Australia's property prices doubled this past decade, from an already high base [4]
Australia has no Anti Money Laundering laws for Realestate Agents, Lawyers and Accountants, despite a committee "considering" implementation every two years for over a decade. Transparency International ranks Australia as having the weakest anti-money laundering (AML) laws in the Anglosphere, failing all 10 priority areas [5]
Prices for property are set at the margins (recent sales are used for valuation of upcoming sales) [6]
Read more:
[1] http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-11/foreign-buyers-not-...
[2] https://amp.afr.com/real-estate/residential/70pc-of-chinese-...
[3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/insideasia/2017/02/22/china-cap...
[4] https://about.homely.com.au/blog/2017/3/23/what-we-can-learn...
[5] https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2017/03/report-australia-wo...
[6] https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2017/04/foreign-buying-can-...
[+] [-] megy|8 years ago|reply
It doesn't matter if it is the primary cause, it is one of the causes. And it is the one to change that causes the least problems to the people of the country you represent.
In Australia, things are compounded by the incredibly greedy negative gearing rule, which also needs to be banned.
[+] [-] chris_wot|8 years ago|reply
That doesn’t mean that overseas speculators aren’t part of the cause this problem.
[+] [-] incompatible|8 years ago|reply
There may be some houses that are left vacant, the owner could be in NZ or somewhere else. Perhaps it would have been more useful to take measures against that instead.
[+] [-] jseliger|8 years ago|reply
Correct.
The primary cause has always been local steady employment, low interest rates combined with liberal access to debt with households culturally disposed to pumping that into housing.
This part is incorrect; the primary cause in the last 40 years has been supply restrictions: https://jakeseliger.com/2015/09/24/do-millennials-have-a-fut...
Tokyo is a notable exception: https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-...
[+] [-] aceon48|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 0xADEADBEE|8 years ago|reply
The current political developments present an interesting situation; a Labour campaign pledge was to impose capital gain tax on personal property investment (already sanely capped for anyone considered a property developer). I don't see other asset classes being taxed differently to compensate, thus exacerbating the already dire talent drain the country is experiencing. Ironic, given the endemic NZ aspiration to 'get ahead'. It's certainly an interesting time to live here, but I'd prefer bubbles to confine themselves to the Bay Area!
[1] https://www.fsc.org.nz/site/fsc/files/Releases/Releases%2020...
[+] [-] mustntmumble|8 years ago|reply
"We have agreed on banning the purchase of existing homes by foreign buyers," said Ms Ardern
My point is that non-residents will still be able to build new houses. This policy brings New Zealand in line with Australia which already has a similar policy.
[+] [-] elyobo|8 years ago|reply
The next step would be to require that those that do not meet the rules sell up, which should put a bit of supply into the market and achieve some meaningful price movement.
Another good step would be to finally bring in a decent capital gains tax, ideally charged annually on paper profits at whatever your marginal tax rate is, and with no family home exemptions. Ironically taxing the family home would, in this case, actually make them more affordable by exerting further pressure to move speculators out of the market.
[+] [-] skybrian|8 years ago|reply
Seems pretty sensible?
[1] "The country’s proposed ban on foreign buyers, which would only apply to non-domiciles" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/25/new-zealand-to...
[+] [-] xxgreg|8 years ago|reply
"LABOUR WILL PARTNER WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO BUILD 100,000 AFFORDABLE HOMES
KiwiBuild will deliver 100,000 affordable houses over ten years for first home buyers. Half of these will be built in Auckland. That is a ten-fold increase in the number of affordable houses being built in Auckland each year, from 500 to 5,000."
http://www.labour.org.nz/kiwibuild
[+] [-] dang|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CodeSheikh|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rukittenme|8 years ago|reply
You look at any major city and you'll see rent control and stabilization, restrictions on building and eviction, and a thousand other well intentioned policies that "help" the poor or "save" our "historic" neighborhoods. What a great job its doing...
[+] [-] csomar|8 years ago|reply
It says it is banning non-residents. But a New Zealand company owned by a foreigner is considered a resident entity, right?
[+] [-] charlesdm|8 years ago|reply
What stops NZ residents (or non-residents) holding RE through corporate entities from selling their shares and indirectly transferring ownership?
Will be interesting to see how it's implemented.
[+] [-] pascalxus|8 years ago|reply
Optionally, you could still ban foreigners from buying in places where things are already built out.
It just seems such a shame, to see so much economic loss on both sides (both for purchasers and those who'd have benefited from more jobs or higher paying jobs).
This is a disturbing pattern I've been seeing playing out in many countries: politicians and the sometimes the voters that elected them have insufficient economic education to make optimal decisions, leading to economic losses - the prime example being what happened in Venezuela.
[+] [-] xupybd|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andrewstuart|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lwhsiao|8 years ago|reply
[0] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/new-zealand-foreigners-buy...
[+] [-] dang|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 1897235234|8 years ago|reply
Are the people making these comments the same people that will happily live in this situation? Are they rich people that will never live in this environment, or are they young progressives who think they want to live in a high-rise and have sex with robots or whatever despite being 20 and not knowing anything? Or are they immigrants trying to get into a country?
[+] [-] zach417|8 years ago|reply
The benefit of liberalization (i.e. no limits on foreign investment) is that it can provide "a higher rate of return on people’s savings in industrial countries by increasing growth, employment opportunities, and living standards in developing countries." [1]
The benefit of controlling (i.e. limit foreign investment) is that it can reduce market volatility and risk. "International investors are willing to lend to them in good times but tend to pull back in bad times, thereby amplifying swings in the domestic macroeconomy." [1]
[1] - http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/basics/capital.htm
[+] [-] caf|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rm_-rf_slash|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elyobo|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] duncan_bayne|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justicezyx|8 years ago|reply
Try the obvious and simple approach first. If not working, revise.
Instead of trying to balance between too many factors, slumping in decision making and consensus gathering, and in the process, all the smart people already exploited or even corrupted the system.
[+] [-] RowanH|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elyobo|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] colordrops|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] contingencies|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryandrake|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thrden|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] odammit|8 years ago|reply
I live in LA and I’d welcome it here - not for all “foreigners” but at least to block foreign investors in residential homes and condos (not the actual buildings but the units). I bought a home last year and I put in 36 offers all 5-15% above asking and was outbid by investors on all but one that I ass-backwarded into.
I feel like this is something that would also be welcome in Barcelona with the issues they are having with investors buying up all the housing and renting it on AirBNB.
[+] [-] epx|8 years ago|reply